> On Dec. 24, 2015, 11:10 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > Looks good, but I wonder if we need to go so far as to introduce the `enum
> > Protocol` misnomer in the global IPAddress message now. We could always add
> > it in later, when we actually get NetworkInfo off of it.
>
> Anand Mazumdar wrote:
>

> On Dec. 24, 2015, 11:10 a.m., Adam B wrote:
> > Looks good, but I wonder if we need to go so far as to introduce the `enum
> > Protocol` misnomer in the global IPAddress message now. We could always add
> > it in later, when we actually get NetworkInfo off of it.
1. Adam, can you elaborate

> On Dec. 18, 2015, 2:54 p.m., Artem Harutyunyan wrote:
> > include/mesos/mesos.proto, line 1597
> >
> >
> > Why is it a Vip and not VIP, or VIp, or maybe even virtual_ip to be
> > consistent with the style?

> On Dec. 17, 2015, 5:40 p.m., Adam B wrote:
> > Let's get rid of the Vips message per MPark's recommendation, since we're
> > unlikely to ever add any more fields to that message.
Could you please also clean the `Depends On` field for this review?
- Artem